20091965 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Ramani (Malaysia) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1242 held on 20 September 1965

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Ramani (Malaysia) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1242 held on 20 September 1965

I should like to offer a comment or two on the draft resolution to which we have given our support, but before I do so permit me to offer a word of comment on the references made by the representative of Pakistan to certain statements I made at the 1241st meeting. It is very unfairly urged that the fair sex like to have the last word, but I think men too have a habit of talking the last word. Nothing would have given me the highest pleasure than to have left the representative of Pakistan with the comforting thought that he had the last word on this controversy of his own creation, but I would have been responsible for the misunderstanding which has been generated in his mind. I think that in fairness to him, and certainly in fairness the myself, I should try to explain what precisely I should do, if he will permit me..

I normally try to express myself in as precise the language as possible, but, even though I read from the written text, I must have been particularly obscure in the use of language. The first complaint of the representative of Pakistan related to my reference to that fateful day in August 1947. He asked to whom I was referring and who the peoples were. I was humbly referring to the fact that India was partitioned in August 1947. As Minister of Law, having learned the Constitutions of the countries, he would know that the parliamentary act that divided India and liberated Pakistan and India referred to "undivided India" many times. Therefore I referred to what India was before 15 August 1947, which by parliamentary usage be referred to as undivided India, which became divided and became Pakistan and India. I could not think the integrity of the States.

Undoubtedly the Minister of Law came rather late in this debate. He was not present on the two earlier resolutions on which I took the floor when I had the real fortune or whatever else it may be of introducing those two other resolutions. On the first resolution, which was on 4 September, I said the following in introducing the resolution :

"As I said, the draft resolution does no more than just call a halt to this escalation. India and Pakistan, as two great world Powers, have less a duty to themselves than. to the wider cause of world peace and world order. They have been and should continue to be an example to the Afro-Asian world." [1273th meeting, para. 137.]

The day before yesterday, when I was speaking on the substance of the debate, I said the following:

"My country enjoys the most friendly relations with Pakistan as well as India and we are anxious that this relationship should continue and mature."

I would like him, when he has a little time, to dwell on those passages and realise I was not at any time denying-I did not, I could not have denied-the integrity of the existence on the status of Pakistan.

The other matter to which he referred was my reference to the "musty records of the Council. As to that, he was here on Saturday and therefore he must have heard what I said, which was:

"In resolutions 209 (1965) and 210 (1965) we called for a halt to hostilities-the sole concern, I repeat, in the present context of the Security Council. It is not to recall ancient resolutions from the musty records of the past, nor to express pious hopes for a peaceful settlement in the future, nor to get side-tracked from the main objective." [1241st meeting, para. 32].

So what I did say was that our attention should not be turned backward, it should be turned forward. I understand, if I may be permitted a personal reference,

that the Law Minister of Pakistan is a member of the English Bar, and I understand also that he and I come from the same Temple. Now, he knows, and I know as a practising lawyer, that especially when you go to court, they must hear your records, they must hear the authority that you cite; the more ancient the doctrine that you can press into service, the more ability you demonstrate to the court. And no lawyer, certainly no one who has been trained as a lawyer would ever refer in that context to "musty records" as something derogatory or disrespectful. I do hope he will accept my explanation. I am. sorry if I did not make myself clearer, as I now find I ought to have.

I would now like to go on and make a few comments on this resolution. My friend, the representative of the Netherlands, undoubtedly deserves the greatest of praise for the tremendous amount of effort he exerted. The inspiration did not come to him; he had to shed a great deal of perspiration over this matter. We are all conscious of this, and we tender to him our gratitude.

To my Government, the resolution is subject to certain reservations It is, if I may say so, like the curate's egg-good in parts and not so good in other parts. The fourth preambular paragraph specifically reads:

"Noting the differing replies by the parties to an appeal for a cease-fire as set out in the report of the Secretary General, but noting further with concern that no ceasefire has yet come into being". The words "different replies" have now been a handed to read "differing replies," which some might regard as a distinction without a difference. The word "but" therein rather gives the meaning that, whatever might have been said by the parties, the thing is going on. It therefore suggests a rather derogatory attitude; it is almost a pejorative reference to the replies from both parties. One may deserve it, the other may not; both may deserve it, but may not. But I think that the word "but" there is not something that is conducive to a clear understanding of what we intended to convey. I think it was Cleopatra who said: "But' is like a goaler that brings forth the malefactor", and the malefactor is there. I would have preferred to have that expanded and put in plainer language; but I understand also that, as all feeble compromises must do, they hide themselves and nobody can manage to find either their lineaments or their form.

With reference to operative paragraph 4 of the resolution, in the context of my own statement made to the Council, we should have liked not to have this resolution cluttered up with a reference to the political settlement. I have all the time understood that all views expressed in this Council had to be taken into account; but to the extent to which we have had the pleasure and the privilege of listening to the representative of Pakistan, even before we voted, I almost ventured to think that the child had been killed even before it was born, and that we were listening to an inquest of paragraph 4- that it will not work and it is not intended to work. Therefore, had my friend from the Netherlands not objected to the resolution's being put to the vote in separate parts, we would not have voted in favour of operative paragraph 4. In any case, we have a forecast of what is going to happen to operative paragraph 4. I suppose it does not matter if I do not venture into further criticism about what it might do or what it might not do.

My Government is undoubtedly just as anxious as anyone else at this table that there should be a cease-fire and that it should arrive as soon as possible; with the reservations I have just stated, and because we are so anxious, we voted in favour of this resolution.